Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59 part 21/33

'and over the golden altar they shall spread a covering of hyacinth,' so that he commanded that this same covering of hyacinth was to be covered with another thing, which covering was already over the altar, and thus he briefly embraced both — that the altar was to be covered with the covering of hyacinth, and that the covering of hyacinth was to be covered with another wrapping. He added finally with what he wished the covering of hyacinth to be covered, when he subjoined: 'and they shall cover it with a covering of hyacinth-colored skin.' 'A man or woman, whoever shall have committed any of human sins, and despising shall have despised and shall have offended, that soul shall declare the sin which it sinned, and shall restore the offense, the principal, and shall add its fifths upon it, and shall render to him against whom it offended.'

'But if there be no kinsman to the man, so as to make the restitution of the offense to him, the offense that is restored shall be the Lord's, the priest's, besides the ram of propitiation by which he shall make entreaty in it for him.' Here are to be understood those sins whose perpetration is in matters which can be restored by money. For he would not otherwise say how they are to be restored, unless they were of monetary loss. For he commands to be restored the principal and the fifths, that is, the whole of whatever it is and a fifth part of it, besides the ram which was to be offered in sacrifice for the expiation of the offense. And he commands that what is restored be the priest's — that is, the principal itself and the fifth — if there is no kinsman to him against whom the wrong was committed.

Where indeed it is understood that what belongs to the priest is then to be rendered to the Lord, if the very man who suffered the loss does not survive, nor his kinsman — whom I think he wished to be understood as the heir. But concerning the man himself Scripture said nothing; yet, when it says: 'if there be no kinsman to him,' under this brevity it intimates that then his kinsman is to be sought, if he himself does not survive. But if there be not even a kinsman, it is to be restored to the Lord, lest what was committed remain unpunished: which nevertheless is not to go into sacrifice, but is to be the priest's. Thus indeed the words of Scripture must be distinguished: 'but if there be no kinsman to the man, so as to render the offense to him'; for it is a manner of speech that he added:

'to him' — or perhaps he said 'to him' meaning that it pertains to him, that is, that he himself possesses it. Then follows: 'the offense that is restored shall be the Lord's, the priest's'; and he calls it 'offense' when the very thing is restored which was taken away by the offense. But it can be asked how in Exodus it is said: 'if anyone shall have stolen a calf or a sheep, he must restore five calves or four sheep, if he has killed or sold it; but if what he took away is found safe with him, double is to be restored,' whereas here he commands the principal and a fifth to be restored, which is far even from double, how much more from fourfold or fivefold as much! Unless perhaps, because here he says:

'a man or woman, whoever shall have committed any of human sins,' he wished sins of ignorance to be understood as 'human sins.' For it can happen that, by paying too little attention through negligence, a man transfers another's property into his own: which is therefore a sin, because, if it were carefully attended to, it would not be committed. And these he wished to be restored by the principal and a fifth, not to be penalized as thefts.

For if here we understand thefts and frauds, which are committed not through the ignorance of negligence, but with the intention of stealing and defrauding, and are therefore called 'human' because they are done against men — then, unless I am mistaken, the outcome of this question will be that he who did it does not restore even double, because he is not caught or convicted, but himself declares his offense to those who are ignorant by whom it was done or whether it was done. For when Scripture had said: 'a man or woman, whoever shall have committed any of human sins, and despising shall have despised and shall have offended' — that is, has committed these things by way of contempt — it added and said: 'that soul shall declare the sin which it sinned, and shall restore the offense, the principal, and its fifths.'

Perhaps therefore for this reason only — because he himself declared it and therefore was not to be punished with that penalty by which a thief caught or convicted ought to be punished. The words which Scripture says are to be spoken to the woman by the priest, when the husband brings her under suspicion of adultery: 'May the Lord make you a curse and an execration' — the Greek has 'a sworn oath.' By which word there seems to be signified 'an oath by execration': as if someone should say, 'So may such and such not befall me,' or should even swear thus: 'may such and such befall me, if I have done, or have not done, this.' So this was said: 'May the Lord make you a curse and an execration,' as though it were said:

'so that concerning you they may swear the things which they will swear by execration: so may such not befall them, or may this befall them, unless they have done that.' 'And he shall offer his gift to the Lord, a lamb of a year old without blemish for a holocaust, and one ewe-lamb of a year old without blemish for a sin.' This certain of our translators were unwilling to render, as it were avoiding an unusual expression, and said 'for sin' (pro peccato), not 'into a sin' (in peccatum), whereas there is in that expression a sense which ought not to have been disturbed. For 'into a sin' was said because this very thing which was offered for sin was called a sin. Whence is that saying in the Apostle concerning the Lord Christ:

'Him who knew no sin he made sin for us' — that is, God the Father made God the Son sin for us, that is, a sacrifice for sin. As therefore the lamb was 'for a holocaust,' so that the animal itself was a holocaust, so also the ewe-lamb was 'for a sin,' so that the animal itself was a sin — that is, became a sacrifice for sin — just as concerning the ram what follows says 'for a peace-offering,' as though it were itself the peace-offering, whereas it is a sacrifice of peace. Which afterwards, by repeating, he makes plain; for he says 'for sin' of that which he had earlier said 'into a sin,' and 'a sacrifice of peace' of that which he had earlier said 'for a peace-offering.' 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: This is concerning the Levites.' This others have translated:

'this is the law concerning the Levites'; but what is written, 'this is concerning the Levites,' is understood to mean: 'this I ordain concerning the Levites.' Then follows: 'from the twenty-fifth year and upward they shall go in to minister the ministry in the works in the tabernacle of testimony; and from the fiftieth year he shall withdraw from the administration and shall no longer work — and his brother shall minister — in the tabernacle of testimony to keep the charges, but the works he shall not work.' This sense is made obscure by the asyndeton, which is so confused that it seems to be said of the brother himself, 'to keep the charges,' whereas it was said of him who withdraws from the works and to whom there remains in the tabernacle of testimony 'to keep the charges';

'but the works he shall not work, but his brother shall work' — that is, he who has not yet reached the age of fifty, beginning to work from twenty-five years. Therefore it must be distinguished thus: 'and from the fiftieth year he shall withdraw from the administration and shall no longer work, and his brother shall minister.' Then it returns to that fifty-year-old of whom it was speaking, and concerning him explains the rest, saying: 'in the tabernacle of testimony to keep the charges, but the works he shall not work.' For where it says 'to keep,' 'he shall begin' is understood, as though it said in one word 'he shall keep the charges.'

For it is customary, even in Latin expressions, for the infinitive verb to be put in place of a finite one. When at the time of the Passover certain men who had been made unclean over the soul of a man — that is, over a dead body — were asking how they should keep the Passover, since it behooved them to be purified from uncleanness for seven days according to the law, Moses consulted the Lord and received the answer that 'whoever such a thing had befallen, or who was set on so long a journey that he could not come, ought to keep the Passover in another month, on account of the fourteenth day of the month,' whereon the number of the moon was observed.

But if it be asked what they should do, if perchance such uncleanness fell also upon the second month, I judge that what was said concerning the second month was to be retained as a general rule, so that they should observe it in the third month; or certainly that not to have kept the Passover under such necessity would not pertain to guilt. 'And on the day when the tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the house of testimony; and at evening there was over the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until morning. So it was always: the cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night. And when the cloud went up from the tabernacle, then afterward the sons of Israel moved on; and in the place wherever the cloud stood, there the sons of Israel pitched camp.'

'At the command of the Lord the sons of Israel shall pitch camp, and at the command of the Lord they shall move on. All the days in which the cloud overshadows the tabernacle, the sons of Israel shall be in the camp. And when the cloud draws out over the tabernacle many days, then the sons of Israel shall keep the charge of God and shall not move on. And it shall be, when the cloud covers a number of days over the tabernacle, at the voice of the Lord they shall be in the camp, and at the command of the Lord they shall move on. And it shall be, when the cloud is from evening until morning and the cloud goes up in the morning, then they shall move on by day, or by night, and if the cloud goes up they shall move on;'

'whether by day or by a month of days, while the cloud abounds overshadowing over it, the sons of Israel shall be in the camp and shall not move on, since at the command of the Lord they shall move on. They kept the charge of the Lord at the command of the Lord by the hand of Moses.' This whole passage must be carefully expounded, since it is obscured by unusual kinds of expression. 'And on the day,' he says, 'when the tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the house of testimony': the same tabernacle he called the house of testimony. 'And at evening there was over the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until morning. So it was always.' Then he carefully expresses what happened always. 'The cloud,' he says, 'covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night.'

'And when the cloud went up from the tabernacle, then afterward the sons of Israel moved on.' This sentence is not obscure except on account of that expression where 'and' is added. For the order of the words follows complete, even if the conjunction itself be lacking, so that it is said thus: 'and when the cloud went up from the tabernacle, afterward the sons of Israel moved on'; although even that which was said, 'afterward,' if it were lacking, the sentence could be full. Then it follows, saying: 'and in the place wherever the cloud stood, there the sons of Israel pitched camp.' But all this that they did, referring it to the command of the Lord, he thus embraces: 'at the command,' he says, 'of the Lord the sons of Israel shall pitch camp, and at the command of the Lord they shall move on.'

He calls 'the command of the Lord' that very sign which was made in the cloud, whether when it stood overshadowing the tabernacle, so that the camp too remained still, or when it went up and moved further on, so that they, breaking camp, followed it. He indeed changed in this sentence the manner of narrating, and, as it were foretelling and foreannouncing, he began to use words of the future tense. For he does not say: 'at the command of the Lord the sons of Israel pitched camp' (conlocabant), but 'shall pitch camp' (conlocabunt); nor does he say: 'at the command of the Lord they moved on' (promouebant), but 'shall move on' (promouebunt). And this manner he keeps also in what follows, which manner is most unusual in the Scriptures. For we know that future things have often been foretold by words of the past tense; as is: 'They dug my hands and feet,' and:

'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,' and countless such instances; but that a narrator of past deeds should use words of the future tense, as in this place, can most difficultly be found in the Scriptures. Therefore, after he had said concerning day and night by what sign the people should move on or should remain, lest they be thought to walk by night and be wont to settle by day and to do this on all days, he went on to add and said: 'All the days in which the cloud overshadows the tabernacle, the sons of Israel shall be in the camp. And when the cloud draws out over the tabernacle many days.'

Then, admonishing that this was not done out of their necessity, but out of God's will: 'and the sons of Israel,' he says, 'shall keep the charge of God' — that is, the charge which God commanded — 'and shall not move on.' And as though it were said: 'When then shall they move on?' — 'And it shall be,' he says, 'when the cloud covers a number of days over the tabernacle' — that is, days of a certain number, which number surely pleases God — 'at the voice of the Lord they shall be in the camp, and at the command of the Lord they shall move on.' He seems to call the sign which he gives concerning the standing and motion of the cloud 'the voice of the Lord,' because the voice of one speaking is without doubt a sign of the will. So then what he says, 'and at the command,' I think is to be understood as this same sign.

Although the phrase 'and the command of the Lord' might also be taken to mean that which he 'spoke,' as he is wont, 'to Moses,' and 'commanded this to be done.' For they would not have known that they must move on when the cloud moved on and must stand still when the cloud stood, unless this had been commanded them beforehand. But in these things which have been said it has not yet appeared whether they walked only by day or also by night according to the sign which the cloud gave by its motion. For perhaps, although they remained many days in the camp while the cloud did not move on, it might nevertheless have been supposed that the cloud was not wont to go up from the camp and give the sign of the journey except by day. Therefore it follows and says: 'And it shall be, when the cloud is from evening until morning and the cloud goes up in the morning, then they shall move on by day.'

Here that copulative conjunction is placed after the manner of Scripture. For when it is removed, the sense is full in this way: 'and it shall be, when the cloud is from evening until morning and the cloud goes up in the morning, they shall move on by day.' Then, because also by night, if the cloud went up, they moved on and made a nocturnal journey if they received that sign, he added and said: 'or by night, and if the cloud goes up they shall move on.' But the expression is rather unusual; for not only is 'and' placed, but it is placed in a manner in which it is not customary. Whence it seems to me that the order of the words is inverted, as often is wont to happen also in Latin expressions: which kind is called antistrophe. Accordingly, if it be said thus: 'or also by night, if the cloud goes up they shall move on,' or certainly thus:

'if also by night the cloud goes up they shall move on,' the sense is most plain. But still it occurred to one pondering, that he might wish to know whether, just as it was known that they were wont to walk at the sign of the cloud both by day and by night, or to be in the camp both by day and by night, so also they were wont to remain only for days, even on the nights of which they walked: which I think Scripture intimated in what follows, when it says: 'by day, or by a month of days, while the cloud abounds overshadowing over it, the sons of Israel shall be in the camp and shall not move on.' For because it had said: 'or by night, and if the cloud goes up they shall move on,' it as it were remained to say: 'but by day, if it does not go up, they shall not move,' when they seemed as though they ought to move on;

but because this too could happen for many days, that by night they walked while the cloud moved on, and while it remained they did not walk by day, therefore he set down: 'by day, or by a month of days.' He did not say 'by a month,' lest there the nights of the same month too should be taken, but 'by a month of days,' that is, a month on that part on which it was day, not on that on which it was night. 'By day, then, or by a month of days, while the cloud abounds overshadowing' — that is, abounds in overshadowing, or overshadows more abundantly — 'over it' — that is, over the tabernacle — 'the sons of Israel shall be in the camp and shall not move on.' Finally, he repeated that it was done by divine authority, which surely ought not to be resisted, adding: 'since at the command of the Lord they shall move on.'

'They kept the charge of the Lord at the command of the Lord by the hand of Moses.' He returned to the word of the past tense, so as to say 'they kept.' But what he put at the end, 'by the hand of Moses,' is a most usual expression in the Scriptures, because through Moses God commanded these things. 'And when you shall gather the assembly, you shall sound the trumpet, but not for a sign.' Therefore he does not command it to be sounded for this, that the assembly may be gathered — for if this is done, it is a sign — but, the assembly being already gathered, he commands the trumpet to be sounded, as though it now pertained to song, not to the giving of a sign by which, when given, he might admonish that something be done.

Accordingly, when any man of the New Testament interprets to some spiritual meaning this fact that, the assembly being already gathered, they sounded the trumpets, to him it is a sign who understands why it is done, not to those who did not understand, except when it was done for this, that some work might be enjoined. 'And I will take away of the spirit which is in you, and will place it upon them; and they shall bear with you the onset of the people, and you shall not bear them alone.' Very many Latin translators have not rendered it as it is in the Greek, but have said: 'I will take away of your spirit which is in you, and will set it upon them,' or 'will set it in them,' and have made a sense laborious to understand.

For it can be thought to be said of the spirit of the man himself, by which human nature is completed with the body joined — which nature consists of body and spirit, which they also call the soul — of which the Apostle also says: 'For what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? So also the things of God no one knows but the Spirit of God.' And what he adds and says: 'But we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God,' shows assuredly that the Spirit of God is another, of whom the spirit of man is made partaker through the grace of God. Although it might also, as others have interpreted, be understood of the Spirit of God in that which is said:

'Of your spirit which is in you' — so that it was said 'your,' because that which is God's becomes ours too, when we have received it: just as it was said of John, 'in the spirit and power of Elijah.' For the soul of Elijah had not been transmigrated into him. And if certain people, in heretical perversity, suppose so, what will they say concerning that which is written, 'The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha,' since he certainly already had his own soul — unless because it was said of the Spirit of God, that through him too He might work such things as He worked through Elijah, not departing from the one in order to be able to fill the other, nor being divided so as to be diminished in the one, in order to be able in some part to be in the other as well?

For He is God, who is able to be present in His fullness in all in whom He has willed to be present through that grace. Now however, since it is thus written, 'And I will take of the spirit that is upon you,' and it is not said, 'of your spirit,' the resolution of the question is easier, because we understand that God willed to signify nothing other than that they too would have help from the same Spirit of grace from which Moses had it, so that these also might have as much as God willed, not so that Moses on that account should have less. And Moses said: 'Six hundred thousand footmen there are among whom I am, and You have said, I will give them flesh, and they shall eat a month of days. Shall sheep and oxen be slain for them, and will it suffice them? Or shall all the fish be gathered together for them, and will it suffice them?'

It is usually asked whether Moses said this out of distrust or by way of inquiry. But if we suppose that he said it out of distrust, a question arises as to why the Lord did not reproach him for this, as He reproached him for that occasion at the rock from which water flowed forth, where he seems to have doubted the Lord's power. But if we say that he said this by inquiring after the manner in which it would come to pass, the Lord's very reply, where He said to him, 'Shall the hand of the Lord not suffice?', seems like that of one refuting the fact that he had not believed these things. Yet I think it better understood that the Lord answered thus, as though He was unwilling to state the manner of the future deed which Moses was inquiring about, but rather to demonstrate His power by the very work. For He could have, even to Mary saying:

'How shall this be, since I know not a man?' — she could be charged by slanderers with having believed too little, whereas she was inquiring after the manner, not doubting the power of God. But that which was answered to her, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you,' could also have been answered thus, as here: 'Is anything impossible to the Holy Spirit, who shall come upon you?' And thus the same sense would be preserved. Moreover, Zacharias, saying certain such things, is accused of unbelief and is punished with the penalty of a suppressed voice. Why? Except because God judges not from words, but from hearts.

Otherwise, even at that rock from which water flowed forth, the words of Moses could have been excused, had not the divine sentence been clear against him, that he spoke such things out of distrust. For those words run thus: 'Hear me, you unbelievers: shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?' Then follows: 'And Moses, lifting up his hand, struck the rock twice with the rod, and much water came out, and the congregation drank and their cattle.' Surely it was for this that he gathered the people, for this that he took up that rod with which he had done such great miracles, and struck the rock with it, and thence the effect of its accustomed power followed. Therefore those words in which he said, 'Shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?', could be taken as though it were said:

'Surely out of this rock, according to your unbelief, water cannot be brought forth' — so that finally, by striking, it might be shown that what they in their faithlessness did not believe could indeed be done divinely; especially because he had said, 'Hear me, you unbelievers.' In this way indeed these words could be understood, were it not that God, who is the searcher of the heart, indicated with what disposition they were spoken. For the Scripture follows and says: 'And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you did not believe to sanctify Me in the sight of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.' And through this it is understood that Moses spoke those words as though he had struck at an uncertain outcome, so that, if the effect did not follow, he might be thought to have foretold this when he said:

'Shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?' — what lay hidden in his mind would have remained entirely concealed, had not God's sentence disclosed it. And so, on the contrary, in this present passage we ought to understand the words of Moses concerning the promised flesh to have been those of one inquiring rather how it would come to pass, than of one distrusting, since the Lord's sentence did not follow that would punish, but rather one that would instruct. Concerning the Ethiopian wife of Moses it is usually asked whether she is the daughter of Jethro, or whether he married another or took an additional wife. But it is credible that she was the same; for she was of the Midianites, who are found in Chronicles called Ethiopians, when Jehoshaphat fought against them. For in those regions the people of Israel is said to have pursued them, where the Midianites dwell, who are now called Saracens.

But now almost no one calls them Ethiopians, just as the names of places and peoples are for the most part wont to be changed by antiquity. And He said to them: 'Go up by this wilderness, and you shall go up into the mountain, and you shall see the land, what it is, and the people that sits upon it, whether it is strong or weak, whether they are few or many.' It is understood that He explained in what sense He said, 'whether it is powerful or weak' — that is, 'whether they are few or many.' For how could they, looking out from a mountain, perceive the strength of human powers? There can also be another sense far more fitting to the truth. When He said, 'you shall go up into the mountain,' He meant into the very land which they wished to explore.

For they could not easily be understood to be spies, where, as if travelling, they were searching out everything. For if we suppose that they viewed and explored the land from the mountain's summit, how could they search out all the things which Moses commanded to be searched out? How could they enter the cities which the Scripture says they entered? How could they take a cluster of grapes from that valley, for the sake of which a name was even given to the place, so that it was called the Valley of the Cluster? Therefore the land was explored on the mountain itself, because it was the very land that was being explored; and there was a certain lower place there, from which valley the cluster was taken. And they brought back the dread of the land which they explored. He said 'the dread of the land,' not that the land itself was in dread, but the dread which they had conceived from that land.

Caleb and Joshua the son of Nun, speaking to the people of Israel that they should not fear to enter the land of promise, said among other things: 'But do not you fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. For the time has departed from them, but the Lord is with us; do not fear them.' That which was said, 'they are bread for us,' they wished to be understood as 'we shall consume them.' But that which they added, 'for the time has departed from them, but the Lord is with us,' they did not say carefully enough. The Lord departed from them — for they were of old ungodly — but, since even to the ungodly, by the hidden dispensation of divine providence, a time of flourishing and reigning is granted, 'the time,' they say, 'has departed from them, but the Lord is with us.' They did not say:

'The time has departed from them and ours has succeeded,' but: 'the Lord is with us,' not 'the time.' For those had the time, but these have the Lord God, the Creator and Ordainer of times, and the Distributor of them to whomever, as it pleases Him. As for what is commanded concerning how sins that are not committed willingly are to be expiated, it is rightly asked what those sins of the unwilling are: whether they are those committed by persons unaware, or whether that too can rightly be called the sin of one unwilling, which he is compelled to do; for this too is usually said to be done against one's will. Yet surely he wills that for the sake of which he does it; as if a man is unwilling to perjure himself, and yet does it, when he wishes to live, if someone threatens him with death unless he does it.

Therefore he wills to do it, because he wills to live, and thus not by desiring in itself to swear falsely, but that by swearing falsely he may live. And if this is so, I do not know whether such can be called the sins of the unwilling, as are here said to be expiated. For if it is carefully considered, perhaps no one wills the very act of sinning itself, but it is done for the sake of something else, which the one who sins wills. For all men who knowingly do what is not lawful would wish it were lawful: to such a degree does no one desire the very act of sinning for its own sake, but for the sake of that which follows from it. If these things are so, there are no sins of the unwilling except of those unaware, which are distinguished from the sins of the willing.